Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

"None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." (Rom 3:10-12)

Therefore,

... there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Rom 3:22-26)

We are not good at all. Man is totally depraved. We don't earn God's favor, it is a gift. The justification of man, or how we become good, is first by God's grace. From that flows our faith. In faith, we perform good works in the name of God.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:8-10)

It never starts from us, from man. All goodness starts first from God.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei

We are not good at all. Man is totally depraved. We don't earn God's favor, it is a gift.

Damn, sounds like god fucked up. Regardless, it seems that you have chosen something similar to the first option, that a man is good because he pleases god (however this is accomplished). I take this to mean that god decides what is right or wrong, and actions are good or bad because god says so. Do you agree?

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.

To Mr. Insidium Profundis. Allow me to wish you a most joyous resurrection day. The corollary result of the Euthyphro dilemma is formally represented albeit succintly by the following twofold propositions:

1. Good is what God wills; or,

2. Whatever God wills is good.

Treated by various Christian Philosophers, the dilemma is resolved by proverbially splitting the horns thereby inferring that God is essentially good, that is the "good" is the very nature of God, and that divine commands flow necessarily from His moral nature. Accordingly, "good" is neither arbitrary nor does it exist independent of God.

that is the "good" is the very nature of God, and that divine commands flow necessarily from His moral nature.

And this contradicts the theists theology. How can there be necessary truths if God exists? God is, by definition, omnipotent. Now, it follows from the definition of omnipotence, that God can do anything. The bible supports this. If God can do anything, then God can make any alleged "necessary truth" false.

Moreover, this betrays the fundemental fact that theists hold: God is free. If God is free, how can his command NECESSARILY flow from something or other? This implies that he has no choice. This is a problem our dear friend Leibniz struggled with. For he held that this world was the best of all possible worlds...and this follows from the fact that God's very moral nature demands that he create the best of all possible worlds. Leibniz was quickly ridiculed for the very notion that God NECESSARILY had to create this world. Leibniz had a response to this...however, like most things he said, it is self-evidently false. In fact, it is hard to find (in his philosophy) passages that don't immediately refute themselves when spoken.

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions

Just thought I'd point out this thing that is, in my opinion, to liberally used.

Anycase.. my response to the dilemna.

I believe there is a "God morality" and there is a "man morality". This is a concept I consider to be absolute relativism-- weird name that I think me and my brother created.

My salvation, I believe, is based upon my ability to reconcile my concept of morality with his. This is why.. I might very well be damned to hell for not believing in it-- because if it is as people say it is and not what I believe it is, I'm not sure I could understand and/or accept a "morality" that would justify it.

As illogical and irrational as it may say.. IF he is "all loving".. I believe this might be a consistent way that God would thus judge me. By my willingness to accept him as is.

(In such a case I would be burned in hell forever for not believing in hell.. ironic-- but-- you know.. I can't force myself to accept something that I can't understand. Perhaps though.. (although I don't see how).. I may.)

For if he is hitlerish (I'm using an extreme example here) and I cannot eternally serve (if he exists) such a person because of my concept of morality.. then I will be "lost" rather than be "forced" to live with such a God.

If there exists an absolute code of morality.. Then I suppose that I cannot know what it is (at this time)-- I can only apply my morality and the morality I perceive from any book I choose to give credence to.

It believe it to be logically implied that nothing can be "necessary" for an omnipotent God-- however, this is not to say that he does not define "moral" in a sense that closely to that of at least some members of humanity (not saying me specifically.. I'm speaking generally).

I believe this answer allows for two things.

If God does not exist.. "morality" still does.. athough, subjectively so. If God does exist.. "morality" still does.. although, objectively so.

In the former it doesn't matter what is "objectively moral" since the concept does not exist. If God does exist however, "objectively moral" does exist NO MATTER what you may consider to be "subjectively moral".

Yet.. in either case.. "objectively moral code" cannot be known 100% accurately.. unless, you know "God," at which point one would see how much one wishes to know this "God".

I don't wish to get into a biblical discussion of morality.. that is exhaustive.. I'm just presenting my answer to a dilemma I've never heard until now, but I find it interesting.. maybe I should think on it more.

that is the "good" is the very nature of God, and that divine commands flow necessarily from His moral nature.

And this contradicts the theists theology. How can there be necessary truths if God exists?

Bingo. Everything must be contingent upon an omnipotent creator.

Quote:

Moreover, this betrays the fundemental fact that theists hold: God is free. If God is free, how can his command NECESSARILY flow from something or other? This implies that he has no choice. This is a problem our dear friend Leibniz struggled with. For he held that this world was the best of all possible worlds...and this follows from the fact that God's very moral nature demands that he create the best of all possible worlds. Leibniz was quickly ridiculed for the very notion that God NECESSARILY had to create this world. Leibniz had a response to this...however, like most things he said, it is self-evidently false. In fact, it is hard to find (in his philosophy) passages that don't immediately refute themselves when spoken.

I agree, but Liebnitz did manage to get the concept of space (its relational) correct.... but yes, he remains one of the true assclowns of philosophy... that's what religion does to a good mind...

How else should we procede, if we are to discuss an entity? By ignoring it's proper definition?

Quote:

God is not, "by definition", omnipotent.

Oopsie. First you tell us to not rely on 'by definition' too much, you then immediately contradict yourself by turning to definitions.

And you manage to do so quite ineptly.

Here's something important to remember: dictioanries do noe exist to provide a rigorous philosophical defense of how a term ought to be used in a particular context. Dictionaries exist to provide definitions that people use. Period. If people use the word 'god' to mean 'supreme being' then that definition will be listed. If they use the word to mean 'sexy" then that definition will be listed.

The dictionary does not tell you which definition is the proper defintiion for a theological discussion. For this reason, dictionary definitions are hardly the most rigorous philosophical or theological discourse on the term.

In fact, I can think of a better source for defining the christian god... the christian bible.

The omnipotence of God is a dogma of Catholic faith, contained in all the creeds and defined by various councils (cf. Denziger-Bannwart. "Enchiridion", 428, 1790). In the Old Testament there are more than seventy passages in which God is called 'Shaddai', i.e. omnipotent. The Scriptures represent this attribute as infinite power:

Old School

god's omnipotence is so well established, that the genesis writer can't refer to the concept without being sardonic:

Gen.18:14 "Is any thing too hard for the LORD?"

Job 42:1 Then Job answered the LORD, and said,

42:2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.

Jerimiah holds a conference with the creator, and asserts that the big guy is all powerful:

Jer. 32:17 Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:

to which god replies with an affirmative, rhetorical question:

Jer. 32:26 Then came the word of the LORD unto Jeremiah, saying,

32:27 "Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there anything too hard for me?

How can nothing 'be' too hard for thee": if his will is limited by his nature.

Isaiah:

55:11 So shall my word be that goes forth out of my mouth: it shall not return to me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please,and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

1 Kings 8:27 27 "But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!

New School

Matthew 19:26 "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

Mark 10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Luke 18:27 And he said (jesus), The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

Rev 19:6 from the KJV - "And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth."

The Greek and Latin Fathers unanimously teach the doctrine of Divine omnipotence.

Origen testifies to this belief when he infers the amplitude of Divine providence from God's omnipotence: "Just as we hold that God is incorporeal and omnipotent and invisible, so likewise do we confess as a certain and immovable dogma that His providence extends to all things" (Genesis, Hom. 3).

St. Augustine defends omnipotence against the Manichaeans, who taught that God is unable to overcome evil (Haeres, xlvi and Enchir., c. 100); and he speaks of this dogma as a truth recognized even by pagans, and which no reasonable person can question (Serm. 240, de temp., c. ii).

Reason itself proves the omnipotence of God. "Since every agent produces an effect similar to itself," says St. Thomas (Summa, I, Q. xxv, a. 3), "to every active power there must correspond as proper object, a category of possibilities proportioned to the cause possessing that power, e.g. the power of heating has for its proper object that which can be heated. Now Divine Being, which is the basis of Divine power, is infinite, not being limited to any category of being but containing within itself the perfection of all being. Consequently all that can be considered as being is contained among the absolute possibilities with respect to which God is omnipotent."

Treated by various Christian Philosophers, the dilemma is resolved by proverbially splitting the horns thereby inferring that God is essentially good, that is the "good" is the very nature of God, and that divine commands flow necessarily from His moral nature. Accordingly, "good" is neither arbitrary nor does it exist independent of God.

That's basically a re-wording of "x is good because God wills it""x is good because it is God's nature to will it"

If God starting murdering or raping people then that would become 'good'.

How else should we procede, if we are to discuss an entity? By ignoring it's proper definition?

Quote:

God is not, "by definition", omnipotent.

Oopsie. First you tell us to not rely on 'by definition' too much, you then immediately contradict yourself by turning to definitions.

And you manage to do so quite ineptly.

You really are ridiculous sometimes.

"To much" means "more then sufficient"-- like.. "People ride bikes to much" means "People ride bikes more than enough".. it does not mean that "I should not ride my bike".

Ridiculous.

My point was that people use it as a way to say "without X then there cannot be Y".

He said God, by definition, is omnipotent. By definition God is not omnipotent. As for "philosphical" definitions.. then perhaps, as you commendably argue and present.. a "Christian concept of God" "by definition" is "omnipotent as used by it's writers".

Really? Please, cite me one theologian who has argued this. I can cite many who argue that God is, by definition, omnipotent. Such as, Descartes, Leibniz, St. Thomas, Richard Swineburne, Plantinga, and many others. Moreover, the bible backs up my claim...as todangst has presented.

If you don't know what your talking about, please, refrain from speaking on such matters. It really is embarrising for you.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

As for "philosphical" definitions.. then perhaps, as you commendably argue and present.. a "Christian concept of God" "by definition" is "omnipotent as used by it's writers".

Obviously we are talking about the Christian God. How dense are you? Did you really think we might be talking about Zeus? Please, try to follow the conversation. I assure you, it isn't that complex.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

But.. that wasn't the point. So............

Actually it was.

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions

No, the greek concept. Did you honestly think it was plausible that we might be arguing about Zeus? I guess we all assumed that you were sophisticated enough to infer that we were talking about the Christian concept.

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions

If you don't know what your talking about, please, refrain from speaking on such matters. It really is embarrising for you.

Concerning.

Quote:

Really? Please, cite me one theologian who has argued this. I can cite many who argue that God is, by definition, omnipotent. Such as, Descartes, Leibniz, St. Thomas, Richard Swineburne, Plantinga, and many others. Moreover, the bible backs up my claim...as todangst has presented.

But.. I spell incorrectly all the time-- so that would be the pot calling the kettle black.

To the more important of issues.

I said "by definition" you said "by definition".. you did not say.. "christian definition".. you did not say "hindu definition".. in fact, the closest implication to any sort of qualification for the word "definition" was "God".. but as the term "God" can be applied to a whole host of different concepts from theism to deism.. the qualification doesn't really "qualify" that much.

You and Tod are not CLEAR in your language. Whether or not you believe I should have KNOWN what you were talking about.. my point was still correct in that you did not STATE any qualification that would lead one to understand "definition" as "christian definition".

So.. without any sort of such qualification I went to the dictionary.. which, as I stated before, defines God as merely "The one supreme being."

By the way.. you and Tod also have this problem of assuming that theological or philosophical references matter one bit within a conversation of the issues.

Any theological or philosophical statement should stand upon its own logic. The fact that X Y and Z person may have been consider "theologians" means little to me to me if they use faulty logic-- even as theologians and philosophers A B and C would probably be considered of little relevance if they said the opposite.. such as.. "God exists".

So please.. keep your "Oh so amazing" list of books you've read and construct an argument that is valid within itself as opposed to hoping that outside philosophical or theological reference will do it.

Quote:

Obviously we are talking about the Christian God. How dense are you? Did you really think we might be talking about Zeus? Please, try to follow the conversation. I assure you, it isn't that complex.

I said "by definition" you said "by definition".. you did not say.. "christian definition".. you did not say "hindu definition".. in fact, the closest implication to any sort of qualification for the word "definition" was "God".. but as the term "God" can be applied to a whole host of different concepts from theism to deism..

Please stop being so obtuse. This thread is clearly discussing the christian god.

Quote:

You and Tod are not CLEAR in your language.

Now you're just throwing a tantrum. This thread concerns the euthyphro dilemma. Discussions concerning this dilemma involve the god of the old testament. This god is defined as omnipotent.

You're the one being purposely obtuse.

THEISTS! Answer Euthyphro Dilemma

Now, you tell me how turning to a definition that in no way is suitable to the discussion, makes any sense at all here.

What exactly would you call "arguing from authority" if not the presumption that "theologians define 'god'"

Again, that's not arguing from authority.

When a person puts forth a claim, we must understand what their claim is before we accept it or reject it. To do this, we must begin by understanding the terms they use. Therefore, the claimant begins by giving us his claim, and defining his terms.

Therefore, in order to understand the claims of theism, we turn to experts - theologians, to understand 1) their claim and 2) their terms.

Therefore, the only sane method of debate is to turn to what experts on the matter say about their claim.

Only then can an opponent begin to examine the claim. At this point, the opponent can show why the claimants terms are faulty... he can show that the claimant must in fact accept a different definition.

An actual argument from authority occurs when one holds to a CLAIM based on an authority's say-so.

When a person puts forth a claim, we must understand what their claim is before we accept it or reject it. To do this, we must begin by understanding the terms they use. Therefore, the claimant begins by giving us his claim, and defining his terms.

Therefore, in order to understand the claims of theism, we turn to experts - theologians, to understand 1) their claim and 2) their terms.

If theism has some objective standard beyond merely the definition of:"1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism)."

Then I might agree with you.. as I probably would if this was some sort of scientific conversation.

But theism does not have any objective standard beyond this definition.. and therefore every "expert" is only an "expert" insofar as he personally views the "theistic belief".

Quote:

Therefore, the only sane method of debate is to turn to what experts on the matter say about their claim.

To say that there are "experts" of "theism" without qualifying it with some sort of adjective.. would be analogous to saying that there are "experts" in "suffering".

It's ridiculous.. and that is why I do not accept that I need to "credit" a concept to any theologian or philosopher to make it anymore valid then it would have been otherwise.

This is what he suggested I do when he said. "Cite a theologian that states what you state".

Quote:

Only then can an opponent begin to examine the claim. At this point, the opponent can show why the claimants terms are faulty... he can show that the claimant must in fact accept a different definition.

Once again.. any theologians claim, no matter how high on the "expert scale", does not necessitate that I accept his claims.

But.. if he had qualified his statements before hand.. meaning.. "According to X" "God is, by definition, omnipotent" then that would be fine as well.

Geez.

Quote:

An actual argument from authority occurs when one holds to a CLAIM based on an authority's say-so.

Fine.. if you don't wish me to say "argument form authority" I will not. It is still ridiculous to assume that I must give any more credence to his definitions as the actual definition without any aforementioned qualification on the matter.

Default is the dictionary.

Book of definitions.

That is where one goes.

If I say.

Man, by definition, is an adult male person.

One should not, by default, turn to the books of philosophy to see if this definition is actually accurate.

When a person puts forth a claim, we must understand what their claim is before we accept it or reject it. To do this, we must begin by understanding the terms they use. Therefore, the claimant begins by giving us his claim, and defining his terms.

Therefore, in order to understand the claims of theism, we turn to experts - theologians, to understand 1) their claim and 2) their terms.

If theism has some objective standard beyond merely the definition of:"1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism)."

Then I might agree with you..

So, you don't think that the bible has a say in how god is defined?

Nor do the world's greatest theologians.

Instead, you prefer an online dictionary.

You can't be taken seriously.

Quote:

An actual argument from authority occurs when one holds to a CLAIM based on an authority's say-so.

Quote:

Fine.. if you don't wish me to say "argument form authority" I will not.

It's not an argument from authority to cite how the bible, or a theologian, defines god.

But hey, you stick to your online dictionary.

Quote:

Default is the dictionary.

Book of definitions.

One more time: dictionaries exist to provide commonly used definitions. They do not exist to provide a rigorous philosophical discourse on what terms ought to be used in which context. If people use the word 'god' to describe the sensation one gets when one takes a shit, then that will be listed in the dictionary.

(Just for a bit of information.. I have come across polytheist on this site-- and even if they don't post, many might still read-- I just choose not to disgard them outright since since the site doesn't explicitly disclude them.)

Here, maybe this will help. It pertains to defining atheism, but the point can be abstracted to defining 'god':

Q: But my dictionary says that 'atheist' is defined as ....

A: Will it surprise you to find out that dictionaries exist to provide definitions that people might use? I hope not! Will it surprise you to find out that not all of these definitions are appropriate for every context? I hope not!

Would it surprise you to find out that some theological and philosophical terms have colloquial usages? And that dictionaries list these definitions, sometimes along with the proper theological definitions, and even, in some cases, in lieu of the proper definition?

Well, here's what you should know if you're going to cite a dictionary in a philosophical discussion: Dictionaries exist to provide all the popular definitions that exist for a word. If people use the word 'atheist' to mean 'satanic' or evil, then a dictionary might list that meaning. If people use 'atheist' to mean 'strong atheist' then a dictionary might list that meaning.

Dictionaries might even list the actual meaning of the 'atheist' or 'agnostic'. But one thing that dictionaries usually do not do is provide a rigorous philosophical justification for every definition listed. And that's just one reason why citing a dictionary in a theological or philosophical conversation is a basic blunder - first, you're not providing a source that actually provides a philosophical justification for the defintion, they are merely citing 'common usage!" And second, i's likely that you're importing a non theological usage of the word into a theological debate.

And that's a fallacy of equivocation, a fallacy just as silly as thinking that you could jack up your car with a Jack of Hearts.

I believe the question should be.. do you think the bible has a say in how god is defined for all theist? or just some?

As for the world's greatest theologians. I don't believe that their thoughts are any more valid then they would have been if they were not theologians. That is my point.

You can't be taken seriously if you believe otherwise.

Quote:

t's not an argument from authority to cite how the bible, or a theologian, defines god.

But hey, you stick to your online dictionary.

And you stick with your presumptive mentality in believing that theologians have any more validity to define a theistic god then if they were not authors or considered theologians.

And furthermore, if you consider the Bible as equal to theological books in terms of "validity" of an argument.. then you really gotta stop and take a look at the importance you place on the books you've read just because you've read them.

The bible is more valid in an argument about the definition of a "Christian God" because it is the basis for a "Christian God" it is not any more valid for defining a "Muslim God" then otherwise allowed by the Koran itself.

Theologians don't define a christian god.. or an islamic god.. or a hindu god.. the individual "holy works" of these religions define their 'God's'.

Quote:

One more time: dictionaries exist to provide commonly used definitions. They do not exist to provide a rigorous philosophical discourse on what terms ought to be used in which context. If people use the word 'god' to describe the sensation one gets when one takes a shit, then that will be listed in the dictionary.

Only if it's used by a sufficient amount of people over a sufficient span of territory.

"Rigorous philosophical" discourse is subjective to the Nth degree.. I'm sure people who considered Atlas to hold the world on his back considered that they went through "rigorous philosophical" discourse.

Doesn't matter how much one perceives a "rigorous" discourse with regards to philosophy and theology.. the conclusions will still be as invalid and inaccurate as they would have been without such rigorous discourse.

I said "by definition" you said "by definition".. you did not say.. "christian definition".. you did not say "hindu definition".. in fact, the closest implication to any sort of qualification for the word "definition" was "God".. but as the term "God" can be applied to a whole host of different concepts from theism to deism.. the qualification doesn't really "qualify" that much.

Have you sustained a head injury? What else could cause you to respond to my post and raise objections that very post answered? I know I said "by definition." However, I assumed you were intellegent enough to assume I was talking about the Christian God. Most children under the age of 5 can follow along with this reasoning.

Either your purposely arguing just to hear yourself talk, or you have the cognitive ability of a disadvantaged child. Either way, I have neither the time nor the patience to waste on you.

Go act like an asshole somewhere else.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

You and Tod are not CLEAR in your language.

No, you are choosing to act dumb. We can all see it.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

but for some reason we are talking about this other thing instead.

You're the one who is making a big deal out of it. You're like the drunk guy at the bar who gets slapped for making a luid sexual comment to a lady and then wonders why. It's entertaining at first, but it gets old very fast.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

but POLYTHEISM is a THEISTIC construct... and they would likewise be considered THEIST.

Except it is obvious to everyone here that it was refering to the Christian conception.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Once again.. any theologians claim, no matter how high on the "expert scale", does not necessitate that I accept his claims.

Fine, then whos authority do you accept? If you do not accept a theologians claim in matters of theology, whos athority do you trust?

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Default is the dictionary.

Sorry, a dictionary is a complation of common usages of the word. If the dictionary said ethics is defined as a carrot, this doesn't make it so. When we engage in Philosophical definitions, we are looking for the actual object that corresponds to a given word...not the uninteresting dictionary entry.

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions

This will be my last post in my object lesson regarding presumptive statements regarding ones nature, perception, or general intellectual aptitude, and the ease and general meaningless-ness of them with regards to a debate

In each case.. I only replied in tandum with what was first stated to me. Nothing more nothing less. One sentence for one sentence (more or less).

Since you are not Tod.. I will do this one more time.

Quote:

Have you sustained a head injury? What else could cause you to respond to my post and raise objections that very post answered? I know I said "by definition." However, I assumed you were intellegent enough to assume I was talking about the Christian God. Most children under the age of 5 can follow along with this reasoning.

Either your purposely arguing just to hear yourself talk, or you have the cognitive ability of a disadvantaged child. Either way, I have neither the time nor the patience to waste on you.

Go act like an asshole somewhere else.

Have you been taking the stupid pills? I cannot understand your response to my post and raise objections that my very post answered? I know you said "by definition"-- and I know--as opposed to "assume"-- that you mean something else. I assumed you were intelligent enough to understand my small contention with regards to the clarity of language and the possible misrepresentation of an issue.

Most children under the age of 4 can understand that when one states "you technically misrepresented" that it's with regards to "a technical misrepresentation" and not anything more.

But either way.. I was polite in my first post and you were not in response to my first post. So stop projecting in your tantrum and grow up.

Quote:

No, you are choosing to act dumb. We can all see it.

You're acting childish. Everyone can see that.

Quote:

You're the one who is making a big deal out of it. You're like the drunk guy at the bar who gets slapped for making a luid sexual comment to a lady and then wonders why. It's entertaining at first, but it gets old very fast.

You're the one that got defensive with regards to an issue in which you are technically incorrect.

You're like the suburban brat who knowingly breaks a rule for which he knows he will get spanked and then proceeds to argue with mommy when she spanks him. It's never entertaining, just sad.

Quote:

Except it is obvious to everyone here that it was refering to the Christian conception.

My contention was not regarding what you perceive to be apparent.. it was with regards to the misrepresentation that was possible through a non-qualified statement where a qualified statement was technically necessary.

Quote:

Fine, then whos authority do you accept? If you do not accept a theologians claim in matters of theology, whos athority do you trust?

I do not accept a theologians claims in a matter of theology *merely because he is a theologian. Once again, this was my point, pure and simple.

Quote:

Sorry, a dictionary is a complation of common usages of the word. If the dictionary said ethics is defined as a carrot, this doesn't make it so.

Prescriptive linguistics would suggest that it *would mean carrot if carrot was the only dictionary definition.

If you do not accept prescriptive linguistics.. then I'd imagine you mean descriptive-- and that's fine, but it's necessary to EXPLICITLY QUALIFY OR DEFINE your use of the word else the default will be to look at the dictionary.

Quote:

When we engage in Philosophical definitions, we are looking for the actual object that corresponds to a given word...not the uninteresting dictionary entry.

I will say this once more in closing..

If you had said.. "According to the Christian/X Y Z theologic definition, God is omnipotent." If you said "Philosophical definition" then by the very broad nature of philosophical debate, it would be prudent to explicitly state you definition within the construct of a conditional statement.

e.g. If God is omnipotent then (necessary conditions).

Anyways. I'm done. I've made it through some 300+ posts without making any personal attacks, joking or otherwise. As much as I enjoyed hurling childish insults in response to the two of you (Sorry Chaos.. you kind of got caught up in some built up frustration with Tod's infantile tendencies).. it is still not something I feel very praiseworthy-- even if it was for a point.

Once again.. apologies Chaos for personal attacks. I do feel that the point of that last 15+ posts was rather minor and would be easy to concede as a technical mistake.

But you responded to me in such a manner:

Quote:

If you don't know what your talking about, please, refrain from speaking on such matters. It really is embarrising for you.

Quote:

How dense are you?

Quote:

Please, try to follow the conversation. I assure you, it isn't that complex.

And so.. I reacted in kind--despite the fact that, in general, I do not perceive this type of belittling to of any use with regards to logical arguments where logical conclusions are the aim.